AIR  FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAM E OF SERV ICE MEM BER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE l\TOAl.)	GRADE

X	RECORD  REVIEW

1-----1

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS ANOOR ORGANIZHION OF COUNSEL

YES
x

No

VOTE OFTHE BOARD

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x x

A49.00	EXHIBITS SUBMJTTEDTOTHE BOARD
ORDER A PPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVI EW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOT IFICl\TION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED J\T TIME OF
PF.RSONAL APPEA RANCF.
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARI NG DATE	CASE NUMBER

11 Dec 2013	FD-20I3-00690
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND 1HEBOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE AllE DISCUSSED ON 11-IE ATTACHED AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the appl icant at the applicant's request.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40
RAN DOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM :

: 12112/2013

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEi.. COUNOl.
/\J R FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD l5J5 COMMAN D OR. et Wl  G. JR() fl..OOR
ANDflE\\'S AFB,MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00690	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered  a personal  appearance before the Discharge  Review Board  (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE:	Applicant received a General discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Perform Assigned Duties Properly

Although not explicitly stated, the applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received four Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, and three Records of Individual Counseling.  His unsatisfactory performance included operated motor vehicle with expired tags, failed to follow orders on two separate occasions and departed prior to release by instructor, safety, technical data and Article 92 violations, insubordinate conduct toward NCO and failed to obey order or regulation, submitted comp time off without asking expediter and lied to two NCOs, between April and June 2009 left gas mask unattended at CATM but did not notice it was missing until Phase II refresher week, failed to perform proper tool inventory prior to checking out tool box, and failed to close entry hatch as is mandatory and failed to use technical order.   The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his unsatisfactory performance. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was  within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief